Two mistakes:
My headline and story on the new polling data were bad. The response everyone smart has to this new data is that 71 percent of Americans want an even-handed policy in the Middle East. Yes! Remember what happened to Howard Dean for saying that, 4 years ago? To the Democratic base, no less, the left-wing. Our politics are broken.
Speaking of the Israel lobby, my interpretation of Jack Ross’s comments was also off. Ross says:
Your insistence on the question of affinity [between Israel and the U.S.] makes it sound like I buy into Michael Oren’s narrative, which I certainly do not.
To
clarify, my view is that in keeping with Anatol Lieven’s Russia-Serbia
1914 precedent for a superpower like the US to be so totally
manipulated by a satellite like Israel, by its connection to the
Holocaust narrative, Israel is vital to the sacred story of the
American empire because the Holocaust is the ex post facto
justification for American entry into World War II, and thus the birth
of the American empire.
As to why this has taken on such an overtly religious coloration in the last generation, I have my theory about that..
Ross is 23 years old, I’ve got nearly 30 years on him. This isn’t the first time he’s taken me to school!
"… because the Holocaust is the ex post facto justification for American entry into World War II, and thus the birth of the American empire."
i smeell bullshit. bullsheet that i have smelled before.
is the taken-to school an outhouse?
"My headline and story on the new polling data were bad. The response everyone smart has to this new data is that 71 percent of Americans want an even-handed policy in the Middle East."
For those of you in the posse here, please note Phil's accurate assessment, "everyone smart" is seeking an "even-handed" policy, which I interpret as mutually supportive, NOT either/or.
If true implies a repudiation of the interpretation of Walt/Mearsheimer's thesis that prospective support of Israel AND Palestine is not in America's interest, and only supports their thesis that the CURRENT administration's position is not rationally in America's interest (to the extent that it enables settlement expansion in particular).
And, if the only valid criticism is of the CURRENT policy, and NOT of the substantive permanent and compelling relationship between Israel and US, then their and others' fixation on the "Lobby" as the root of all evil, is also FALSE.
The neo-fascist thesis is false. Even the Buchanon flirtation with that thesis is false.
Does Phil have the guts to assert that, that its an historical aberration of a single administration's incompetence and ideological override of good judgement, and NOT a structural or institutional jading?
Little apologies have come. Where's the fundamental soul-searching, rather than food-fighting?
Witty says:
"If true implies a repudiation of the interpretation of Walt/Mearsheimer's thesis that prospective support of Israel AND Palestine is not in America's interest, and only supports their thesis that the CURRENT administration's position is not rationally in America's interest (to the extent that it enables settlement expansion in particular).
I didn't think you could get much more stupid witty..but thinking those of us who have read W&M would do anything by laugh at this pathatic lie about what they said is really one of the stupidest attempts you have made to date.
Did you read the article, "American"? And, then all of the book?
And, then the gamut of published interviews on youtube?
Their thesis is that (still with a whiff of "if") supporting Israel over Palestine is not in America's interests, as a permanent thesis.
The progressive posse however does not advocate for an even-handed approach, not for an affirmation of Israel AND an affirmation of Palestine. They advocate for a punishment of Israel, as a "colonial" enterprise only.
The right/left posse goes further. They use the Palestinians as poster children for anti-Jewishness. Like the "United Front" in England, they think that both Jews and Arabs have no place in their pure Celtic land (or the parallel in the US).
Walt/Mearsheimer described the lobby as the problem, NOT the current administration's policies. As if administrations are only puppets, and the underlying efforts of factions are the puppeteers. Tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum.
I describe the current administration's policies as the problem. In the case of the current administration, dogma and incompetence are a bad combination.
Richard, could you please drop your collective insults against people writing comments on this list? Try to be so fair and confront people individually?
American: He has been repeating this for quite some time now. What I am not sure about is, if he read it at all.
I think it would be interesting to study in what contexts his language gets more obscure, with meaning being lost in transmission to a very high degree. I don't think that happens with his established positions. And Walt/Mearsheimer definitively is on of those. On that topic he sided with the view on the right of Dan–Realistic Dove–Fleshler, if I remember correctly.
Richard, could you please drop your collective insults against people writing comments on this list? Try to be so fair and confront people individually?
American: He has been repeating this for quite some time now. What I am not sure about is, if he read it at all.
I think it would be interesting to study in what contexts his language gets more obscure, with meaning being lost in transmission to a very high degree. I don't think that happens with his established positions. And Walt/Mearsheimer definitively is on of those. On that topic he sided with the view on the right of Dan–Realistic Dove–Fleshler, if I remember correctly.
Leandor,
Please similarly drop collective inferred insults against the "Israel Lobby", "Zionists", etc.
There are multiple flavors.
To generalize is to misrepresent.
What term did you find "insulting": "posse", "left", "left-right".
I meant them as descriptive.
This shows you haven't the slightest idea where I stand. But you are always willing to judge.
Point out to me were I wrote something about the "Israel Lobby" and "Zionists" that was a "collective insult". But something I wrote, not something that is associatively on your mind.
On the one hand, Richard's comments do often cross in the territory of very hard, if not impossible, to parse understand. On the other, the infantile and unjust insults that he has to suffer from quite a few of the blog commenters (including the one above from "American") justifies his reference to "posse". I am also yet to see him lose his dignity and insult anybody back. So, LeaNder, I am not with you on this one.
Richard, why don't you tell us something about the Palestinians. Anything! But be careful – don't just toss off a quick line or two because "to generalize is to misrepresent".
I expect a long and strangely worded gaseous quagmire of a response please.
Peter D., it is Richard's standard practise to insult all here, usually including his old friend Phil: Phil and his posse, or choose-your-insult-of-the-day.
Do you think its fair to accuse me of something, I have never done?
Check for yourself:
http://www.shrunklink.com/atux
If you find one statement by me including "The Lobby" or "Zionist" as he wrote in an insulting context, that would change a lot, but I doubt you will find even a statement using the terms.
And since he keeps insulting people, I sometimes wonder if he produces what he fears, with a few exceptions.
AND last but not least, don't you think that if you object to people generalizing about "Jews", that they should have at least an awareness that it is unfair do do so against any other group? If you don't think so, than you probably don't object to double standard's as much as I do.
Oil and water.
I don't often write to the posse (moderate and neanderthol alike).
I do write to attempt to communicate to Phil.
He confuses me. In person he is open, inquisitive, non-judgemental. Here his posts are nearly consistently headed with hot innuendo, insulting.
Its unclear to me if he is advocating, but using the journalistic silhouette approach, or just posing questions or theses for food for thought.
I'm not sure if I trust him.
I want to, but I'm really not sure.
In dealing with the left in general, the Israel/Palestine issue is a big litmus issue, with only for or against as options, a horror of political correctness.
Although on economic issues in particular I've led small progressive movements, to the extent that Israel issues get inserted into the portfolio of tested positions, I'm distrusted.
So, over a decade, I've come to severely distrust much of the left, even as I continue to hold assertively progressive views, and state them publicly and convincingly.
Its reinforced here, and even Phil's fixation on the Israel Lobby has leveled a divide there.
I also distrust the publication in the American Conservative. I regard the old con as as bad or worse than the new con.
If publication in the New York Times is inferred as a toxifying influence, I can't imagine Pat Buchanon's publication as above board, and I wonder if there is self-censorship on Phil's part.
On the other hand, I know Phil has a monkey wrench side to him (as do I), and might in fact enjoy sticking it to them incrementally.
should have been:
…, that *you* should …
Peter D., below my first encounter with Witty:
********************************************
http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/123
# LeaNder Says:
June 8th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
any change to have a webcast, for a curious German & other netizens or refugees ?
Besides I am pleased to see this:
“does not provide fuel to the people who are yearning for proof of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, yet does not hesitate to rebuke what must be rebuked”
Never underestimate this part of the story. Even if you are less familiar with the really sick fiction versions of the Protocols the Nazis published for the masses.
[... Never give up your underlying suspicion: ...]
# Richard Witty Says:
June 10th, 2007 at 10:56 am
It is interesting to study forgeries as a study of propaganda.
Using the term “version” as you did earlier, implied to me that you considered perhaps only the “version” was a falsehood, and that there was some authentic original somewhere.
Hard to know from your posts.
********************************************
So whatever you do, as a non-Jew you are always suspect of being an antisemite, everything you say or write has to be carefully looked at through that lense. Why not accept to be one from the very start? That's what I call the Wittyian dynamics by now.
LeaNdr, I'll look at your links if I have time and react (no promise :) ) But from the first impression, you could reply to him that you did not consider any version of the Protocols to be authentic and have the issue settled, no? I guess it is quite natural for us sometimes to overreact in our comments, say things that on the second thought are offensive of may be construed as offensive. Was Richard wrong to suspect you of harboring some antisemitic feelings? He was: never suspect anybody to be an antisemite, just as you natuirally don’t suspect any person in the street to be a criminal, even though there is some non-zero probability that he or she is. Could Richard have his reasons to be a bit paranoid after spending too much time in the comments area of Blogland? He could.
Am I imagining or you just brought an example of a conflict arising between two reasonable people out of virtually nothing?
Its a year ago.
And, the thread supports my statements. I didn't accuse you of anything. I stated that from your language, I inferred.
What do you infer from the language?
"the sick versions" implying that somewhere else there is a real version?
No, Richard, I would think that "the sick version" means just that, the sick version. Maybe a particularly sick version. I think you're trying to parse LeaNdr's words too literally. Also, one does not usually write thinking over all the possible interpretations of his or her words, especially in a blog comment.
"On the other hand, I know Phil has a monkey wrench side to him (as do I), and might in fact enjoy sticking it to them incrementally."
In spite of all the energey spend on balancing views it all comes down to "us vs them".
So all he needs to do, is tell you privately: "Listen Richard, I am in fact working for the ADL and Homeland security we are cornering antisemites."
And you would be gone to only occasionally watch with a malicious joy?
******************************************
You don't have much fantasy beyond: "It's 1938 & Israel is in danger." I could give you many, many examples from the top of my head why he wants to do it.
My favorite is, open discussion feels much less dangerous than supression of subjects. It gives you a chance to see what people feel and/or are concerned about.
Centrally the oppostion is not against Irael or "the Jews" but the creation of a new one.
*******************************************
It would be good if, in spite of all your professional experience, you would recognize that Phil is much more intelligent than you. So he probably knows what he is doing.
there was a blissful period when witty wasn't posting. the level of discourse rose accordingly. my theory is it was because he was being ignored. his posts are not worth engaging, they are just air.
"What do you infer from the language?
"the sick versions" implying that somewhere else there is a real version?"
The Nazis didn't print the Protocols from 1938/39 on. The realized that people would recognize that this were basically their own strategies.
The really sick versions I am alluding to, are version of a chapter of the 19century adventure novel by Hermann Goedsche aka Sir John Retcliffe called the: "Jewish cementary in Praque".(one of the sources) The fiction is enhanced by photographs of the cementary. If you open the little booklet you see it is printed in Prague, after you have read the fiction, you find a series of black and white photographs of the real Jewish cementary in Prague. Thus fiction is grounded in the real world. That is what I call vicious.
*****************************************
And no, nowhere did I suggest–not even indirectly, that there were good and bad or real and unreal versions–that is only on Richard's mind. And I studied linguistics and language, so I should know.
What I consider especially sick about Richard is that not even a "good old good friend" manages to get the benefit of doubt, if he manages to step slightly outside of the group pressure, to remain faithful to his feelings. And the most interesting thing about Phil is, he is trying his best to be honest about what he thinks and feels.
Last note Peter,
if I have the impression someone indicates something sinister, my default setting is to ask, if I understood it correctly.
Richard's default setting is that whatever is on his mind, is exactly what the person meant. It helps to ask occasionally before jumping to conclusions.
I call Richard's default setting prejudice. How do you call it?
RE: "Their thesis is that (still with a whiff of "if") supporting Israel over Palestine is not in America's interests, as a permanent thesis."
"Our argument , it should be emphasized, is not that the lobby is the only factor that influences U.S. decision making… But it is very effective in shaping U.S. policy toward Israel and the surrounding region in ways that are intended to benefit Israel–and believed also to benefit the United States. Unfortunately, the policies it has successfully encouraged have actually done considerable harm to U.S. interests and have been harmful to Israel as well." –The Israel Lobby, M&W, pp 16-17
"The September 11 attacks had a profound impact on the Bush Administration's foreign policy and the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But absent the lobby's influence, there almost certainly would not have been a war. The lobby was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a war that is a strategic disaster for the United States and a boon for Iran, Israel's most serious regional adversary."–ibid, p 17.
LeaNdr, I cannot draw conclusions based on this single exchange. Besides, I feel uncomfortable participating in some sort of "comrade trial", where I am supposed to voice opinions on another commenter, whom I don't know at all. It might be you have legitimate grievances against him, it might be just misunderstanding, it might be as you suggested some prejudice or as I suggested some paranoia. I cannot ignore, however, the impression I have that Richard seems to be "piled on", being an easy target, so to speak. peters above speaks of "a blissful period when witty wasn't posting. the level of discourse rose accordingly" – is the level of discourse of 5 dancing shlomos fine with you, peters? Or is 5ds the result of Witty's postings? 5ds seems mostly to be ignored here, why cannot you do the same with Richard, if you dislike his comments so much? Could it be that you suspect you can actually reason with him?
Anyway, I better shut up, all this has next to nothing to do with the subject of Phil's post.
WTF?
FRANKFURT, Germany — Los Angeles Clippers center Chris Kaman has received German citizenship and will team up with Dirk Nowitzki for Germany at an Olympic qualifying tournament later this month.
Kaman, whose great-grandparents were German, averaged 15.7 points and 12.7 rebounds last season with the Clippers.
The 7-foot Kaman will add size to a German team seeking to qualify for its first Olympics since the 1992 Barcelona Games.
"We'll be stronger under the baskets with Chris," Nowitzki said Thursday.
The German team is practicing at home for a warmup tournament before it travels to Greece for the July 14-20 qualifying event in Athens.
"Chris is a significant addition and we'll now have to integrate him in time for the Athens tournament," coach Dirk Bauermann said.
"Or is 5ds the result of Witty's postings?"
Definitively not. There were times when I fled the list since the responses felt unbearable. My problem is that he seems to be completely unable to differentiate between legitimate critique, bias, antisemitsm and anger about the State of US politics.
How do you think people should treat somebody that constantly insults them? How would you treat somebody that constantly calls you names? Or twists your words according to his taste.
I gave you the early example to show you that this is standard proceedure for Richard Witty. What he did above is insulting to me. I don't mind critique, but I hate lies. A lawyer would call this libel. To repeat: I never used either the term Zionist or "The Lobby" pejoratively.
I demand that Richard Witty stops his serial collective insults of Phil and the people reading his list.
That is all. And it is not the first time, I ask him for this either.
I can easily be reasoned with, with folks that are willing to respect me and actually dialog.
I think it is quite clear what my political positions are.
To rephrase:
1. Since originally proposed in any form, I strongly and consistently opposed the US invasion of Iraq. I even opposed the carte blanche war powers granted to Bush & Co in Afghanistan.
2. I am a liberal Zionist. I favor the green line as border, (that the areas in the West Bank are ALREADY Palestine in substance if not in form and accepted jurisdiction), limited right of return for Palestinians in Israel, compensation to individual and collective Palestinians for properties taken during and since 1948.
But, I am a Zionist. The Jewish people are a people, a nation, and have earned the construction and acceptance of a state. I do not regard the slogan "Zionism is racism" as valid, except in an intentionally revised definition of what "Zionism" is.
3. The equation that adds up by any inference of "The Israel Lobby caused the US to go to war in Iraq", is a falsehood. Whether intended malevolently or not, the effect is to attempt to DISTORT US policy to renounce treaties, agreements, friendships, exchange.
4. Israel remains under attack (overt and deferred state of war) and requires significant defense to rationally protect its civilians.
5. Israel should do every unilateral action it can safely to enhance trust with the Palestinian people. Israel should undertake every bi-lateral effort that it can to enhance trust with the Palestinian people. Israel should do every multi-lateral action that it can to enhance trust with the Palestinian people.
6. It takes two to tango. Israel acting unilaterally can only go so far.
Now your shifting subjects, I know your position, I happen to agree with you occasionally.
The question was: Why do you keep insulting Phil and the people on his blog? What makes you want to blame me with something I never did?
*****************************************
It needs two equals to Tango. Not one master and something reduced to terrorist.
Leandor,
Did you take offense at something specific that I wrote?
What specifically are you referring to?
On my relation with Phil.
I've met Phil a couple times in the last year. We spent a couple summers together in Cape Cod in our mid and late teens. We were potential budding radicals. He went to Harvard and succeeded conventionally as a professional journalist (I don't know how true it was. I mostly heard it from friends of his parents.). I went to Marlboro (a hip small alternative college in Vermont) and pursued an "activist career" (including alternative journalist) for a decade.
In some ways, I experience Phil's theses and what I would call some fixations as a betrayal.
There is the betrayal of support for Zionism, which is frankly secondary.
More importantly is his failure to comment on the US. His apparent advocacy of the "realist" approach of Bryzinski, Walt, Mearsheimer in an "inside the Beltway" war with the neo-conservatives, seems to me to be off topic.
I think both approaches are a total distraction from what is important.
Both imply that the only discussion is of "America's interests", rather than human interests.
Two different approaches to the same wrong question.
So, as a singly loyal human, I feel a betrayal, a violation of Torah.
Also, I wish he would respond to my posts, and it frustrates me when I make what I consider important points (that he likely understands even if others think the writing is obscure or irrelevant to their agendas or areas of understanding).
It also angers me that he has apparently adopted the litmus test approach of the left on Obama.
Purist.